Wikimedia Foundation employee ousted over paid editing

Longtime advocate for female editors is dismissed after taking a $300 side job.

The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit which owns Wikipedia, has apparently terminated an employee who was engaged in editing for pay. The issue of editing for pay has been a hot topic among Wikipedia editors, and it resulted in hundreds of account terminations a few months ago.

The employee, Sarah Stierch, was a "program evaluation coordinator" who was often quoted by journalists writing about Wikipedia, especially on the topic of how to get more women participating as editors. She was hired by the foundation in April 2013, where she was one of about 180 employees. Before that she had a paid fellowship at the foundation, where she did things like oversee an "edit-a-thon" in which editors worked to create new articles on under-recognized female historical figures.

Wikimedia's Senior Director of Programs, Frank Schulenberg, wrote a message on a public Wikipedia mailing list last night explaining why Stierch and the foundation had parted ways. It read:

The Wikimedia Foundation has recently learned that Sarah has been editing Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients, as recently as a few weeks ago. She did that even though it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Wikimedia Foundation values Sarah a great deal. She has been an active Wikipedian since 2006... She is a good friend of many of us.

Everybody makes mistakes, and I would like to believe that the Wikimedia movement is a place of forgiveness and compassion. And so I ask you to respect Sarah's privacy at what is surely a difficult time for her and to join me in wishing her every future success.

In a blog post following the October account purge, foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner denounced the spread of "paid advocacy editing," a kind of "promotional" content that is "clearly problematic" and a "black hat practice" in the eyes of the foundation.

Stierch's dismissal came after a screenshot of her freelancing work was published to the "wikimedia-l" mailing list. The screenshot indicates she accepted $300 for working on a "Wikipedia Page for Individual" in December 2013.

Wikimedia spokesperson Jay Walsh declined to say more about Stierch's specific situation but did reiterate that the foundation takes a dim view of paid editing.

"There's a historical resistance towards it from early days within the project," said Walsh. "Wikipedia is a volunteer project written by people who were unpaid to support free knowledge by giving their work freely to the project."

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that owns Wikipedia, one of the most heavily trafficked websites in the world, as well as other community-driven projects like Wikinews, Wiktionary, and Wikimedia Commons. The foundation is based in San Francisco and has about 180 employees.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who was alerted to the accusations about Stierch on his own Wikipedia user page, declined to comment on personnel matters. Wales did say that he "very very strongly condemn[s] such editing, and this is no exception."

An e-mail sent to Stierch through her personal website yielded only an "out of office" response. Stierch didn't respond to the incident on her Wikipedia user page or on Twitter, where she has continued to be active.

A screenshot leads to a public debate

The suggestion that Stierch may have done editing for pay was first noted by Tomasz Kozlowski, a Wikimedia Commons contributor who also maintains a blog that is sometimes critical of the Wikimedia Foundation.

"Paid editing thrives in the heart of Wikipedia," wrote Kozlowski. "It defies belief that Sarah would be oblivious to these issues and how they are perceived by the wider community... it can only be guessed for which article she was compensated."

The accusations were accompanied by a screenshot of Stierch's account on oDesk, a freelance writing site where she maintained an account. In an interview with Ars, Kozlowski said he was sent the screenshot by a fellow Wikipedian whom he had agreed to keep anonymous.

Kozlowski said he hasn't made up his mind on the issue of paid editing. "I haven't really thought about it much, because it concerns a project [English-language Wikipedia] I'm not active on," he said. "I just pointed out the hypocrisy. All that news about the scandal, and then a few months later, a Wikimedia Foundation employee engages in paid editing."

It isn't clear which pages were edited for pay. In his blog post, Kozlowski speculates about three different possibilities, all edited by Stierch under her own account.

Most responses to the news have been sympathetic to Stierch, including those from the users who publicized her paid editing in the first place.

"I'm not that happy about her being let go," said Kozlowski. "I don't think this was a fire-able offense, to be honest. For a very long time the foundation claimed that what their employees do in their free time isn't necessarily relevant to their job."

"I reckon it's total bollocks," said Scott Bibby, the sometimes-banned Australian Wikipedia user who published the accusations to the widely read Wikimedia-L mailing list. "I want the community to tackle this issue head on and deal with it. It doesn't require people being fired."

"I hope she will remain part of the Wikimedia community," wrote one user in a thread responding to Schulenberg's post. "It is extremely sad to lose one of our best and brightest," wrote another. "Was there no other way?? Was this even considered??"

At the top, support for a "bright line"

The idea of accepting money for edits isn't universally condemned among Wikipedia editors. Some activities, like "sockpuppetry"—the creation of multiple fake accounts in order to skew Wikipedia—are barred by the terms of use. But some cultural and academic workers are paid to write on Wikipedia as part of their jobs, a relatively uncontroversial practice. Some Wikipedians have argued that more types of paid editing should be allowed.

Founder Jimmy Wales has long advocated for a "bright line rule" that paid advocates shouldn't ever edit a Wikipedia page, instead limiting their comments to the "talk" page of an article.

In a 2012 interview with The Signpost, Wikipedia's in-house publication, Wales explained his point of view. "From the beginning, it was something I thought we should pay attention to and prevent to the maximum extent possible... It was obvious even then that there are some people who are willing to act immorally... If you're a PR professional editing on behalf of your client, then hiding behind the excuse that you're only making NPOV [neutral point-of-view] edits doesn't cut it with me at all."

As long as the articles are quality, well cited, and nicely written, I have no problem with someone being paid to write or edit a wikipedia article.

I do not care what motivates someone to do an edit. What I care about is the quality of the edit. In this case if she was making crap edits to skew an article towards a promotional or political point of view that the data does not support, then by all means fire her. But, if she was improving the quality of wikipedia and just getting paid for it, then more power to her.

As long as the articles are quality, well cited, and nicely written, I have no problem with someone being paid to write or edit a wikipedia article.

I do not care what motivates someone to do an edit. What I care about is the quality of the edit. In this case if she was making crap edits to skew an article towards a promotional or political point of view that the data does not support, then by all means fire her. But, if she was improving the quality of wikipedia and just getting paid for it, then more power to her.

I'm surprised that any of the wikipedia commentards manage to stay upright as they are forever teetering on one slippery slope or another. That said I was amused by this in the article by Jimmy Wales:

Quote:

"From the beginning, it was something I thought we should pay attention to and prevent to the maximum extent possible... It was obvious even then that there are some people who are willing to act immorally... "

amused because earlier today the person he hired to be Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), said:

Quote:

Back in the early years, I had a little statement on my userpageencouraging people to donate money to me if they liked my work andwanted me to do more on Wikipedia.

to me, the fact that she was so motivated by a specific political agenda, and furthered that agenda through the medium she was paid to oversee, seems like as big a conflict of interest as taking a freelance job.

i personally don't want anyone with a political agenda, regardless if i agree with it or not, being in a position of authority over such a widely used source of information, who openly uses that information source to further their own political beliefs.

FWIW, I've worked with people paid to write wikipedia articles by providing them information and reviewing work. Its pretty common in some fields to want to have an acceptable wikipedia page about a topic that is relevant to a company or industry. Expecting someone else to create the relevant topics, particularly for an obscure or emerging market, is often a fools errand. I don't really see a problem so long as the material is properly cited, uses NBPOV and of suitable quality.

The argument behind wikipedia was always that real-time peer review catches low quality or commercial material. If thats really true, then there should be no problem with paid editing, although I can see why wikimedia might be uncomfortable with their employees freelancing. There is certainly the possibility of a conflict of interest.

If anyone wants to see what Wikipedia admin culture is like, read the linked mailing list thread. It is entirely personal attacks and arguing over then-unsubstantiated facts (was just a screenshot and nothing else at that point)

A important question is whether she was doing this in working hours or not. If not, It strikes me as (yet another) area whether an employer feels that he can control the actions of his employees when they are on their own time.

Nobody is suggesting that the work in question resulted in a biased article. There could be many reasons why this lady was receiving money for working on articles. Perhaps she wasn't paid that much and needed the money. Perhaps she was helping someone who isn't familiar with the arcane markup language used by Wikipedia. The fact that she didn't set up a sock puppet account, but did the work under her own name, suggests that she wasn't trying to be underhanded or hide anything.

As mentioned in the article, many people who edit Wikipedia articles are doing so as part of their job, and as such are paid for their work. This is considered OK. So why don't the same rules apply to Wikipedia employees if they are working in their own time?

On one hand, being paid to write -PROMOTIONAL- content is obviously really bad.

On the other, it is not easy to write and edit inclusive, detailed Wikipeda pages.

I wouldn't see where the harm was if she was paid to write a page for someone so long as it was just a page and not full of propaganda.

Who knows, maybe she was paid to write a page for the Smithsonian instead of Sony?

... Maybe it was to edit in links for Doritos commercials.

*edit*

Obviously there is some money in it; maybe Wikimedia wouldn't have to run annoying ass banners begging for donations if they opened up a service for maintaining commissioned pages.

It certainly would be easier to regulate this sort of thing if it was being done internally.

It's a slippy slope. How are they going to control what paid edits are ok? Why is getting paid to edit the Smithsonian ok but not Sony?

Because one is an art / history museum and the other is the largest capitalistic entity on the planet?

There is also the issue that when trying to think up two polarized items that would potentially pay for a professionally done Wikipedia page, "S" was the first letter that popped in my mind.

Also, what is the difference between a company hiring someone in specifically to write and maintain their own Wikipedia page and hiring a freelancer to do it? Is Wikipedia going to start deleting pages for Microsoft or Intel is they think that a rep from either company edited in details about their latest products?

To my logic the issue is PROMOTIONAL edits of Wikipedia, not PROFESSIONAL ... as far as I saw nothing in the cited statements clarified one way or the other except that it was PAID edits.

People get PAID to edit text books all the time and it is considered to be a highly legitimate form of occupation, provided there are sources cited verifying the stated changes.

to me, the fact that she was so motivated by a specific political agenda, and furthered that agenda through the medium she was paid to oversee, seems like as big a conflict of interest as taking a freelance job.

i personally don't want anyone with a political agenda, regardless if i agree with it or not, being in a position of authority over such a widely used source of information, who openly uses that information source to further their own political beliefs.

I agree, and it's pretty obvious if you replace "political agenda" with a specific like "Church of Scientology" or "RIAA".

Second, it's about money. How many private citizens does it take to undo one Lobbyist? It's hard for people working on their own time to match the volume of someone making money.

For me though doubts enter the picture if I imagine her writing for hire, and then NOT posting it to wikipedia, but selling the product to someone else who then posts it under their own name. She's okay as long as she never edits the article?

"I'm not that happy about her being let go," said Kozlowski. "I don't think this was a fire-able offense, to be honest. For a very long time the foundation claimed that what their employees do in their free time isn't necessarily relevant to their job."

Usually when a company says "what you do in your free time is your own business", they usually mean things that don't deal with your job, the company name, or the company resources (i.e. computers, email, property, things that make it look like the company endorses something like using paper with the companies letterhead, etc).

The key word being usually as it seems to always come down to a case-by-case ruling. And don't forget if there is preferential treatment involved or not.

Some examples IMO would be like doing a keg stand or a bong hit at a party and a picture shows up on FB, the company maybe fine with it. But if your wearing the companies brand/logo at the time, that might land ya in some hot water. Go to a sporting event and get in to a fight, again things maybe fine. But if that fight makes it on the news or the front page along with the companies name/logo, there might be some blow back. An employer is fine with you going hunting or fishing, but if they find out you clubbed some baby seals instead of taking down a buck, well you've got the point.

Even though something doesn't deal with your job or is outside of your job, your still a face of the company and companies depend on their reputation. I think that people tend to forget that and if your in a state, such as California that is “employment at will”. So long as the firing isn't "based on discrimination; for participating in union activity; for refusing to carry out an activity that violates the law" and maybe a few other things, most things DO become a fire-able offense. Gotta love our laws.

As long as the articles are quality, well cited, and nicely written, I have no problem with someone being paid to write or edit a wikipedia article.

I do not care what motivates someone to do an edit. What I care about is the quality of the edit. In this case if she was making crap edits to skew an article towards a promotional or political point of view that the data does not support, then by all means fire her. But, if she was improving the quality of wikipedia and just getting paid for it, then more power to her.

I mostly agree. For me, the distinction is promotional vs impartial, not paid vs unpaid.

I suspect that promotional and paid are likely to go hand-in-hand so discouraging this is probably best. On the other hand, I've found that political and celebrity articles are almost universally promotional in nature. Many are little more than fan sites built under the Wikipedia umbrella.

Maybe this could be handled by forcing anyone editing an article to click through a dialog that says something like, "I certify under penalty of perjury that the edit I am about to make is impartial and truthful." It may not be actually enforceable, but it may make people think before writing.

It is a tough issue to deal with. Since it is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, I always advise people to never use Wikipedia information for anything other than personal interest questions. If you rely on the info, you do so at your peril.

I am the founder of MyWikiBiz, the first paid-editing enterprise focusing on Wikipedia (June 2006). My publicly-stated approach was that all of my paid content would be openly disclosed, clients revealed, so that the content could be scrutinized and edited by anyone who doubted the ability of a paid encyclopedist to write neutral paid content.

Jimmy Wales' response was to block my account, then tell me if I wanted the account unblocked, I had to agree to write my content on my own website, release it under the (then) GFDL license, then wait for an "uninvolved" Wikipedian to copy the content over to Wikipedia if they judged it to be suitably written for the encyclopedia. One of the first test articles where exactly that happened (an article about Arch Coal, which that company wasn't even aware of, as it was just a trial test), Jimmy Wales stormed in with a rage I've rarely seen in anyone before and deleted the article from Wikipedia, and again blocked my account -- because I was using the word "Wikipedia" on my website to advertise what our editing services promised.

Wales created this entire problem of how paid editors are treated on Wikipedia, so that the entire segment of such paid editors are driven underground -- the good ones along with the bad. Now the Wikimedia Foundation and its affiliates are so hypocritically involved in various paid and conflict-of-interest editing schemes, you need two hands to count them all: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... discussion

I feel bad that Stierch lost her job, all to satisfy the PR need for the Foundation to appear to toe Jimbo's line. I do not feel bad, however, that she's now (hopefully) able to see that she was working for a bunch of hypocrites, anyway. She deserves a better employer.

I am the founder of MyWikiBiz, the first paid-editing enterprise focusing on Wikipedia (June 2006). My publicly-stated approach was that all of my paid content would be openly disclosed, clients revealed, so that the content could be scrutinized and edited by anyone who doubted the ability of a paid encyclopedist to write neutral paid content.

Jimmy Wales' response was to block my account, then tell me if I wanted the account unblocked, I had to agree to write my content on my own website, release it under the (then) GFDL license, then wait for an "uninvolved" Wikipedian to copy the content over to Wikipedia if they judged it to be suitably written for the encyclopedia. One of the first test articles where exactly that happened (an article about Arch Coal, which that company wasn't even aware of, as it was just a trial test), Jimmy Wales stormed in with a rage I've rarely seen in anyone before and deleted the article from Wikipedia, and again blocked my account -- because I was using the word "Wikipedia" on my website to advertise what our editing services promised.

Wales created this entire problem of how paid editors are treated on Wikipedia, so that the entire segment of such paid editors are driven underground -- the good ones along with the bad. Now the Wikimedia Foundation and its affiliates are so hypocritically involved in various paid and conflict-of-interest editing schemes, you need two hands to count them all: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... discussion

I feel bad that Stierch lost her job, all to satisfy the PR need for the Foundation to appear to toe Jimbo's line. I do not feel bad, however, that she's now (hopefully) able to see that she was working for a bunch of hypocrites, anyway. She deserves a better employer.

----------------------

I'm curious.. How do you handle accusations that you and your company are basically paid shills for the highest bidder? Surely someone has suggested it as at least a possibility to be weary of.. If one is taking money, it immediately creates the idea of the possibility of conflict-of-interest, or editorial bias!

After all, you're basically advertising for your business, by name, in the first sentence of your post.

It's a serious question; I'm not trying to troll you or be rude. But for the record, I think paid editing on Wikipedia stinks, and goes against the principles of wikis.

Edited to add: One might say, in retort, that other encyclopedia may have paid editors. But remember, those have one editorial board for the whole encyclopedia, not just certain articles here and there. Unless the disclosure you refer to appears next to the article that was paid for, it's not really a disclosure. How is someone supposed to know what article was paid for and what wasn't, nevermind by who? I have never heard of your business, so it's not like I would have cross-referenced your website to find out. I don't know, it just doesn't feel right.. It feels tainted. I can't trust an encyclopedia where certain articles are paid for, and it's not like you are legally bound to be honest about who paid for it. I'm not saying you are not honest, but what about the next company? Who is to say who paid for what and why? No, it's a tangled web. Paid editing is wrong for Wikipedia.

She also actively lobbied to get "Did You Know?" snippets from a couple of these articles to appear on Wikipedia's main page, for thousands more potential page views than they'd otherwise achieve. She certainly pushed the boundaries of notability and of on-Wiki promotion far more than I would have, and I'm an unrepentant paid editor! (She still didn't need to be fired. The "bright line rule" needs to be changed.)

I'm curious.. How do you handle accusations that you and your company are basically paid shills for the highest bidder? Surely someone has suggested it as at least a possibility to be weary of.. If one is taking money, it immediately creates the idea of the possibility of conflict-of-interest, or editorial bias

After all, you're basically advertising for your business, by name, in the first sentence of your post.

It's a serious question; I'm not trying to troll you or be rude. But for the record, I think paid editing on Wikipedia stinks, and goes against the principles of wikis.

I handle the accusations with integrity and resolve. There really aren't "highest bidder" types of relationships going on, by the way. Paid editors, if anything, are fulfilling requests of buyers who are shopping for the LOWEST bidder. Take a guess at how many Wikipedia articles about businesses were either launched by, or most heavily-contributed-to by either a probable paid editor or an employee of the company that is the subject of the article. It's about 35%. (Yes, I have the data, based on a random sample of 100 articles.) The "editorial bias" that you fear is already present in nearly every Wikipedia article. If anything, an experienced paid editor is going to do a better job than a company's communications manager who doesn't know Wikipedia's policies. The paid editor will document more reliable sources, properly formatted; include a section on "controversies" or "criticisms" of the company; avoid "peacock" terms; etc.

Paid editing may "stink", but how do you square that with the slogan, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Also, are you familiar with the Reward Board on Wikipedia? Paid editing is sanctioned and advertised, right there on Wikipedia. This article, in fact, was a product of a Reward Board offer for $75.

What I fear is when "US Coal Burning Power Plant Inc." (or whomever) pays someone 5000 dollars to write an article, that there is strong impetus for the writer to write an article that will please the client, and I can't imagine that it wouldn't cross the mind of at least some writers to not diligently pursue an objective agenda vis-a-vis cited sources of incidents of environmental pollution by that same company (for example). One could say, "yeah well someone else can come along and add those sourced items about their pollution record. Anyone can edit it".

Sure they could..

Except they aren't getting a 5000 dollar check to do so! That leaves a pretty unbalanced equation.

What I fear is when "US Coal Burning Power Plant Inc." (or whomever) pays someone 5000 dollars to write an article, that there is strong impetus for the writer to write an article that will please the client, and I can't imagine that it wouldn't cross the mind of at least some writers to not diligently pursue an objective agenda vis-a-vis cited sources of incidents of environmental pollution (for example). One could say, "yeah well someone else can come along and add those cited sources. Anyone can edit it".

Sure they could.

Except they aren't getting a 5000 dollar check to do so! That leaves a pretty unbalanced equation.

Know what I mean?

Anyway.. You hiring? :-)

I share your (initial) fears about a paid coal-burning advocate writing an article, but here are two factors to consider that usually get lost in the noise. (1) The further the advocate pushes the envelope, the more "obvious" his content becomes, and then all of his edits are potentially drawing more scrutiny. No smart paid editor wants a ton of scrutiny, so they tend to (eventually) learn to write bland things in an unassuming style. And, (2) there are plenty of anti-coal-burning zealots out there who are more than likely to counter-balance the paid editor... or the anti-coal lobby might have hired a paid editor or two of their own!

In the end, if you are trusting a crowd-sourced encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then you are foolishly biasing the balance if you say that a "paid" editor is unwelcome, while never questioning the unpaid zealot's freedom to edit.

(I am slowly expanding my stable of affiliate editors, but you must meet two important requirements -- a strong track-record of demonstrated ability to write durable Wikipedia-formatted content, and a signed non-disclosure agreement.)

to me, the fact that she was so motivated by a specific political agenda, and furthered that agenda through the medium she was paid to oversee, seems like as big a conflict of interest as taking a freelance job.

i personally don't want anyone with a political agenda, regardless if i agree with it or not, being in a position of authority over such a widely used source of information, who openly uses that information source to further their own political beliefs.

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone (where sin = bias and throw stone = write article)

What I fear is when "US Coal Burning Power Plant Inc." (or whomever) pays someone 5000 dollars to write an article, that there is strong impetus for the writer to write an article that will please the client, and I can't imagine that it wouldn't cross the mind of at least some writers to not diligently pursue an objective agenda vis-a-vis cited sources of incidents of environmental pollution (for example). One could say, "yeah well someone else can come along and add those cited sources. Anyone can edit it".

Sure they could.

Except they aren't getting a 5000 dollar check to do so! That leaves a pretty unbalanced equation.

Know what I mean?

Anyway.. You hiring? :-)

I share your (initial) fears about a paid coal-burning advocate writing an article, but here are two factors to consider that usually get lost in the noise. (1) The further the advocate pushes the envelope, the more "obvious" his content becomes, and then all of his edits are potentially drawing more scrutiny. No smart paid editor wants a ton of scrutiny, so they tend to (eventually) learn to write bland things in an unassuming style. And, (2) there are plenty of anti-coal-burning zealots out there who are more than likely to counter-balance the paid editor... or the anti-coal lobby might have hired a paid editor or two of their own!

In the end, if you are trusting a crowd-sourced encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then you are foolishly biasing the balance if you say that a "paid" editor is unwelcome, while never questioning the unpaid zealot's freedom to edit.

(I am slowly expanding my stable of affiliate editors, but you must meet two important requirements -- a strong track-record of demonstrated ability to write durable Wikipedia-formatted content, and a signed non-disclosure agreement.)

There are several problems with allowing paid editing. One is that it can lead to unconscious bias, so something believes they are being objective when they are actually biased toward the sponsor. Another issue is that having biased content staying on Wikipedia for longer is more valuable to those paying the bills, so the ability to write in a more insidiously biased manner becomes more valuable. As a result, those who keep getting paid to edit Wikipedia will be more likely to have this skill and be better at biasing an article in such a way as to make it non-obvious (in theory).

What you say about unpaid editors with a strong agenda is true, and that is a challenge, but I don't think adding paid editing on top of existing agenda-driven editors is an improvement to that situation.

There are several problems with allowing paid editing. One is that it can lead to unconscious bias, so something believes they are being objective when they are actually biased toward the sponsor. Another issue is that having biased content staying on Wikipedia for longer is more valuable to those paying the bills, so the ability to write in a more insidiously biased manner becomes more valuable. As a result, those who keep getting paid to edit Wikipedia will be more likely to have this skill and be better at biasing an article in such a way as to make it non-obvious (in theory).

What you say about unpaid editors with a strong agenda is true, and that is a challenge, but I don't think adding paid editing on top of existing agenda-driven editors is an improvement to that situation.

Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that these arguments don't mesh with reality. If you're being paid by a client, you don't "unconsciously" drift out of objectivity. You either elect to do so, or you elect to maintain objectivity. A paid Wikipedia encyclopedist (at least a smart one) knows that the happiest client is the one whose article sticks, not the one whose article gets savagely attacked because it was written in a biased manner. So, the skill the buyer is looking for is durability, not spin.

As long as anonymity holds the cherished place it always has on Wikipedia, it is pointless to talk about "agendas" of Wikipedia editors. You never know one's agenda, you only guess at their implied agenda.

Right now, there is an article on Wikipedia about the Wiki-PR incident. There is a set of editors who want Wikipedia to reflect a story by Thomas Halleck in International Business Times which revealed that not all of the sockpuppets attributed by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wiki-PR actually belonged to that company. Some belonged to another firm, LegalMorning. There are other editors struggling to keep this information *out* of Wikipedia, because it makes the Wikimedia Foundation look stupid. The argument they are using is that International Business Times is "not a reliable source", even though it is used as a source in over 2,000 other Wikipedia articles. Which side do you think is "winning" that editorial debate right now?

if anyone voting down my above comment could explain why, i would very much appreciate some incite.

Where did it say this was in any way related to a political agenda?

all I saw was them citing that someone paid her $300 to edit a page for them.

i was referring to the pro-female agenda, specifically the female editor and "forgotten women of history" efforts mentioned. there are no shortage of forgotten men of history, and popular sources of information promote actual equality and not favor one subset of society over another.

Maybe because her "political agenda" was something that Wikipedia was openly and actively trying to promote? (ie. greater participation from women)

i wasn't aware of that wikipedia level effort. off the cuff i'd rather they focused on getting more quality editors period regardless of what genitalia they own, but without knowing the ratio i'll reserve judgement. do you have any reliable sources for the ratio of editors?

how could they even establish the gender participation with so many anonymous editors? i know when ever i've viewed the edit history of an article, the far and away majority of edits were done by anonymous ip identified editors.

to me, the fact that she was so motivated by a specific political agenda, and furthered that agenda through the medium she was paid to oversee, seems like as big a conflict of interest as taking a freelance job.

i personally don't want anyone with a political agenda, regardless if i agree with it or not, being in a position of authority over such a widely used source of information, who openly uses that information source to further their own political beliefs.

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone (where sin = bias and throw stone = write article)

i've only ever contributed factual, verifiable edits, never whipped up a whole article myself. also, i don't work for wikipedia which creates, as i said, a conflict of interest, not a "sin". i don't like special interest groups poisoning the well with their ideologies, but its a completely different bag of worms when a caretaker of a supposedly unbiased information source slants parts of that body of information towards their own world view. i honestly believe if the bias i referred to was any other bias than pro-female, my comment would have been received very differently.

But since this is Wikipedia, can't anyone go in and correct the omission? Regardless of whether they are paid or not?

In theory, of course they could. But Wikipedia has always had a problem with editors who consider pages they've worked on their property, and a paid editor might be more inclined to do so. The focus on consensus to resolve disputes might also put companies who hire more editors in a position to overrule what the community would otherwise want. The rules become much harder to enforce as a result. Even if paid editors were allowed and simply needed to disclose their affiliations, you just get more politics and more accusations of bias.

I think equating "paid" with "biased" is the real problem here. A lot of paid editing could be perfectly unbiased (as was the case with every single encyclopedia on the planet prior to Wikipedia?) while a lot of unpaid editors could be very biased.

My observation has been, that people working for free (in a "community") generally do so, because they have some sort of cause other than money. Obviously that cause will leave many (but not all) of them biased. Wikipedia has had to lock hundreds of "controversial" articles on many subjects, like climate change and large corporations, exactly because unprofessional writers raged havoc on them.

I pay a little to Wikipedia every year, usually around 50 USD, because I like the site and use it a lot. I would pay more if some of the money could be used to directly fund professional writers to expand my national Wikipedia since it is so poor in content compared to the English - which is a problem especially for older people and kids who haven't learned English yet.

Hell, if I had my way, our Ministry of Culture would throw out a million or two a year, to support professional writers in expanding the content. Under supervision to ensure it is unbiased - sure - but let us be fair: such supervision is needed for all content; paid or unpaid! In fact, some unpaid content may need it significantly more than the paid content!

The notion that "paid articles are bad" is, IMHO, a bunch of BS. The fact is biased articles are bad, no matter if money was involved or not. And all the ban on paid writing really does, is keep the GOOD writers out of Wikipedia. The bad/biased ones will just do it anyway undercover...

Are you saying that unpaid editors are unbiased and never omit anything (willfully or not)?

The quality and bias of an article/edit cannot be determined by whether or not the person doing it was paid for it.

I'd reckon that much of the Justin Bieber article is written (and vigorously guarded) by Justin Bieber fans. Do you want to ban them? Do you think articles should only be written by people who have no personal stake in the matter?

to me, the fact that she was so motivated by a specific political agenda, and furthered that agenda through the medium she was paid to oversee, seems like as big a conflict of interest as taking a freelance job.

i personally don't want anyone with a political agenda, regardless if i agree with it or not, being in a position of authority over such a widely used source of information, who openly uses that information source to further their own political beliefs.

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone (where sin = bias and throw stone = write article)

i've only ever contributed factual, verifiable edits, never whipped up a whole article myself. also, i don't work for wikipedia which creates, as i said, a conflict of interest, not a "sin". i don't like special interest groups poisoning the well with their ideologies, but its a completely different bag of worms when a caretaker of a supposedly unbiased information source slants parts of that body of information towards their own world view. i honestly believe if the bias i referred to was any other bias than pro-female, my comment would have been received very differently.

Your "special interest group" may very well be my "neglected/disadvantaged minority" -- and somehow the relatively well-off, privileged or powerful rarely consider their own viewpoints to be noticeably biased.

This seems to me to be much more simple than a question about paid editing. In that particular case, a person was employed by company A, and was paid by external sources to work on matters regarding company A in contradiction with its published policy. That is widely considered unacceptable, at least in Europe/US, although it could be considered somewhat differently in other regions. Imagine somebody working in marketing for GM and having a side contract for Toyota ?

This seems to me to be much more simple than a question about paid editing. In that particular case, a person was employed by company A, and was paid by external sources to work on matters regarding company A in contradiction with its published policy. That is widely considered unacceptable, at least in Europe/US, although it could be considered somewhat differently in other regions. Imagine somebody working in marketing for GM and having a side contract for Toyota ?

Your example is all wrong.

She was not paid to work against Wikipedia or to promote its competitors.

She was simply paid to enhance the value of her existing workplace. Had she done it for free Wikimedia would probably have been very happy with her work. Regardless, getting paid was against regs and it was a foolish thing to do. But your example is very very far from what really happened.

FWIW, I've worked with people paid to write wikipedia articles by providing them information and reviewing work. Its pretty common in some fields to want to have an acceptable wikipedia page about a topic that is relevant to a company or industry. Expecting someone else to create the relevant topics, particularly for an obscure or emerging market, is often a fools errand. I don't really see a problem so long as the material is properly cited, uses NBPOV and of suitable quality.

I am absolutely happy with this provided only that the editor creates a new identity, whose userpage details the source and amount of payment involved, for doing the edits.

What I fear is when "US Coal Burning Power Plant Inc." (or whomever) pays someone 5000 dollars to write an article, that there is strong impetus for the writer to write an article that will please the client, and I can't imagine that it wouldn't cross the mind of at least some writers to not diligently pursue an objective agenda vis-a-vis cited sources of incidents of environmental pollution by that same company (for example).

One could say, "yeah well someone else can come along and add those sourced items about their pollution record. Anyone can edit it".

Sure they could..

Except they aren't getting a 5000 dollar check to do so! That leaves a pretty unbalanced equation.